On-board Sound Tested Against an External DAC/Headphone Amplifier

d8lock said:
Driver burn in is most certainly real. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
Click to expand...
Again, all I've ever seen are the same measurements before and after. Has there been an objective test that showed a difference?
 
pek said:
I thought the catfight that started about "golden ears" vs objective measurements would have been interesting. But you hear what you hear, and if you like that that sound, what does it matter what the measurements are? No one has been able to quantify measurements with "good" sound to my knowledge. While numbers are useful, without being able to correlate them to YOUR perception, all it is is an exercise.
Click to expand...


I understand your point, but I think it ignores fact.

In simplest terms, the solution that offers the highest range with the least distortion is the best sound. That being said, if a given individual is incapable or hearing the difference, then that individual is the limitation, not the equipment, and such individuals would likely be happier with less expensive solutions that offer "to them" comparable sound quality.

But your perception does not change measurable fact. Some people are just lucky.
 
Wrecked Em said:
The bits start to wear down after heavy use. The zeros will start to become lowercase o's eventually, and you'll hear it if your ears are sensitive enough. A driver refresh will clear it up like new again, especially if you defrag the disk first.
Click to expand...

Well then by all means you'll want to add one of these to the mix. It's a must have.

http://www.bedini.com/clarifier.htm

You had me going for a bit. Well done.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm not sure I trust the results though.
Click to expand...

Same.

Or rather, their interpretation; I'm fine with an audio jack being well implemented in a laptop. What I don't trust is the repeatability when power sources change, EMI changes, and I don't trust the applicability beyond the specific unit tested.
 
I said "better" not "sounds better", just generically better. sound quality is subjective, volume improvement is obvious.
I didn't read the whole thing so idk about the "trust" bit but it sounded "yeah, no shit" to me.
 
pek said:
I thought the catfight that started about "golden ears" vs objective measurements would have been interesting. But you hear what you hear, and if you like that that sound, what does it matter what the measurements are? No one has been able to quantify measurements with "good" sound to my knowledge. While numbers are useful, without being able to correlate them to YOUR perception, all it is is an exercise.
Click to expand...


As an engineer I am an objectivist by nature. I also acknowledge that sometimes we don't measure the right things, or measure the right things in the right way.

I think THD is important, but I am also open to the possibility that there are other metrics we could be measuring but currently aren't, that could be contributing to the perception of quality in audio.

Then there is placebo and confirmation bias too, which makes this even more confusing and difficult to pin down.

Jason Stoddard, one of the founders of Schiit Audio wrote a mini chapter in his forum based book on this subject, and it is an interesting read. I tend to agree with his take on the subject. One could also argue - however - that he owns a company that makes money by selling expensive audio gear, so he is biased. Either way, I think he makes a fair minded attempt at tackling the subject and it is a good read.

He briefly mentions a test they do internally which seems to correlate very well with subjective listener tests. A multi-tone distortion test, similar to IMD. They don't have large enough sample sizes to say for sure, but this just could be one measurement which in addition to placebo effects can help explain why some systems sound better than others to people.

(If you ever wondered what it is like behind the scenes in a start-up audio company, the whole "book" is a fascinating read)
 
I've been interested in relatively high end audio since the '60's, and (like games) a review from a source you trust is needed to winnow the search field for whatever the piece of equipment you're looking for, and in an absolute sense, you can use the results to narrow down to whatever measures "right", but your ear is still the ultimate review. Big thing late '60's was the tube amps driving a very sensitive speaker (like horns), but the tube amps measured for shit. Placebo affect or not, while a device that measures "better" for a given value of better, is that it may or may not sound better to the listener. Good measurements can be a starting point. Thanks to Massdrop, (and some loose change burning a hole in my pocket) I've been getting some iem's and a Senn/Massdrop HD6xx and a few different dac/amp combos (like the topping unit in the review) to start comparing, nothing more than $150 (which disqualifies me from trying the "best" equipment, I guess). I've just started to compare thing, and it's not a rigorous method, but it is what sounds good to me. Do the best measuring 'things' sound better? I've not compared measurements to lessen the bias as much as I can. IS anyone going to use my results as a trusted source, I hope to god not, because what I hear (and like) is not necessarily going to measure well and/or sound "good". The iem's do sound different from the acknowledged good HD6xx, but only I can determine if it sounds "good/pleasing" to me. And now I have to concentrate on "listening" rather than just listening.

TL;DR, It depends.

edit: I don't know of anyone that can say "that measurement correlates to that "sound" in YOUR head. They can say that a high thd will affect the sound this way or that way. Unless I'm the one doing the testing in my head, there's no way to correlate the test results to what I hear. I can TRY to use that test to see what I might hear with the same equipment and music. I haven't heard a review source that has my ears. While I'm an engineer by vocation and avocation, sound will always be subjective to me.
 
Last edited:
Zarathustra[H] said:
As an engineer I am an objectivist by nature. I also acknowledge that sometimes we don't measure the right things, or measure the right things in the right way.

I think THD is important, but I am also open to the possibility that there are other metrics we could be measuring but currently aren't, that could be contributing to the perception of quality in audio.

Then there is placebo and confirmation bias too, which makes this even more confusing and difficult to pin down.

Jason Stoddard, one of the founders of Schiit Audio wrote a mini chapter in his forum based book on this subject, and it is an interesting read. I tend to agree with his take on the subject. One could also argue - however - that he owns a company that makes money by selling expensive audio gear, so he is biased. Either way, I think he makes a fair minded attempt at tackling the subject and it is a good read.

He briefly mentions a test they do internally which seems to correlate very well with subjective listener tests. A multi-tone distortion test, similar to IMD. They don't have large enough sample sizes to say for sure, but this just could be one measurement which in addition to placebo effects can help explain why some systems sound better than others to people.

(If you ever wondered what it is like behind the scenes in a start-up audio company, the whole "book" is a fascinating read)
Click to expand...

His chapter notes are interesting, but the thread is a cluster-fuck of nonsense and not worth weeding through so I suggest just searching for Mr. Stoddards posts and ignoring the rest.

To note: the guy doing the Audio Science Review test, amirm, has been called out on many occasions as being agenda driven and many of his tests methods have been called into question and he's been banned on many forums. I'm not an engineer and don't have have a personal beef with him, but also find some of his antics have poor tact.

I agree that external amplification is helpful, especially with hard to drive headphones. I think a more import aspect is find headphone's that have the sound quality you like as not all are created equally as we all know. In the end the transducers have more of an affect on your ears than amplification or dacs, so try before you buy.
 
Last edited:
pgwalsh said:
His chapter notes are interesting, but the thread is a cluster-fuck of nonsense and not worth weeding through so I suggest just searching for Mr. Stoddards posts and ignoring the rest.
Click to expand...

Indeed. When I read it I used the "Chapter Index" in the first post in the thread to read only Stoddard's "book" and not every morons comments :p

pgwalsh said:
To note: the guy doing the Audio Science Review test, amirm, has been called out on many occasions as being agenda driven and many of his tests methods have been called into question and he's been banned on many forums. I'm not an engineer and don't have have a personal beef with him, but also find some of his antics have poor tact.
Click to expand...

Who knows though, it is a tough subject. There are forums out there you can be instantly banned just for suggesting that some golden eared audiophile nonsense is silly.

pgwalsh said:
I agree that external amplification is helpful, especially with hard to drive headphones. I think a more import aspect is find headphone's that have the sound quality you like as not all are created equally as we all know. In the end the transducers have more of an affect on your ears than amplification or dacs, so try before you buy.
Click to expand...

Fully Agreed.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Golden ears are a joke. There is no such thing. Anyone in their 20's who knows what to listen for already have some hearing loss in the upper end where the higher sampling rates are supposed to help. Most self proclaimed "Golden Ears" can't tell the difference between 192kbps mp3 and uncompressed 24bit 192kHz sampled raw with anti jitter. They make all kinds of excuses. But the simple matter of fact is, they are full of shit.

The only area you can clean up in the transients present with higher frequency and breakup of the driver at resonance. As modern drivers can push the resonance (Breakup frequency) above 22kHz, and most golden ears are lucky they have good response to 16kHz, it's a non issue.

That doesn't mean speakers can't color or present different sound stage or response, or resonance issues. This is especially true of bass which typically has high THD. But source audio typically isn't the issue. Anything below 1% THD is hard to detect, and even then it's hard to tell if it was intentional or not compared to the original.
Click to expand...
Breakup well above 20k eg 30-40k+ depending on designs used, reduces onset distortion and pushes it out of audible range.
But you're mostly correct otherwise.
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Golden ears are a joke. There is no such thing. Anyone in their 20's who knows what to listen for already have some hearing loss in the upper end where the higher sampling rates are supposed to help. Most self proclaimed "Golden Ears" can't tell the difference between 192kbps mp3 and uncompressed 24bit 192kHz sampled raw with anti jitter. They make all kinds of excuses. But the simple matter of fact is, they are full of shit.

The only area you can clean up in the transients present with higher frequency and breakup of the driver at resonance. As modern drivers can push the resonance (Breakup frequency) above 22kHz, and most golden ears are lucky they have good response to 16kHz, it's a non issue.

That doesn't mean speakers can't color or present different sound stage or response, or resonance issues. This is especially true of bass which typically has high THD. But source audio typically isn't the issue. Anything below 1% THD is hard to detect, and even then it's hard to tell if it was intentional or not compared to the original.
Click to expand...


I find that source audio often is a problem. Not mind you the bitrate, sample rate or compression, but actual distortion in the original recording.

I have driven myself nuts trouböeshoorong my audio setups trying to eliminate distortion only to finder that the distortion was in the original recording. Maybe they used a bad mic or did some poor effect processing or something. It drives me nuts.
 
Yeah, the better the reproduction equipment, the more you hear, including issues with the recorded material. Drives me nuts listening to a non-rock live performance and hear someone coughing in the background, clear as day. Lot's of times it's with the upper-end of the sound, seems that those problems are easiest to hear, at least for me. And the ones that bother me the most. If I switch can's or iem's, the better ones will give me more of the distortion from the original recording. While I understand that having recordings from the early 30's/40's/50's is valuable for having a record of the artists (especially the old blues & folk that the LOC & Smithsonian have available), I find it painful to listen to them because of the limitations of the early recording devices.
 
lightsout said:
Do you think the upsampling is actually doing anything worthwile? Not sure how it would make thew sound any better.
Click to expand...
There is definite audible difference. Mostly a change in volume but high end seems clearer as well. I can't really tell a difference at 24/48 but 24/96 and especially 24/192 are noticeable.
 
lostin3d said:
There is definite audible difference. Mostly a change in volume but high end seems clearer as well. I can't really tell a difference at 24/48 but 24/96 and especially 24/192 are noticeable.
Click to expand...
From the same source/master? Volume change and audible differences? Either you're doing something wrong or it's placebo.
 
Last edited:
Meeho said:
From the same source/master? Volume change and audible differences? Either you're doing something wrong or it's placebo.
Click to expand...

Been doing this with multiple rigs, with around 4 or 5 different receivers(Panasonic, Sony, Denon, Onkyo-2 different models) for over 13 years now and all either 6.1 or 7.1. From digital coax to fiber to hdmi the effect has always been the same. Like I said, going from the standard 16/44.1 to 24/48 not much if anything, put it to 24/192 and it's definitely noticeable. Don't have equipment to measure it but I'd compare it to the difference between a t.v. show and some commercials. It's minimal, like a 5% to 10% but at low volumes you can really tell. Very well aware that most games use 16/44.1 mp3, or worse but this does help.
 
Audio threads are always a pissing contest between who has the best ears, tubes, chips, speaker types, etc...

I'm a Klipsch fan (grew up with khorns and LS's) and love the "bright" horns for all my music and gaming. Because of that, I'm an outcast guy "that's been to too many rock shows". At least I don't own Bose.
I'm thinking about heading to a CHD and taking a listen of the new HP-3 cans.

Audiophile- My ears are better than everyone else's, you all suck, something something tubes/chips/EQ for plebs
 
lightsout said:
Do you think the upsampling is actually doing anything worthwile? Not sure how it would make thew sound any better.
Click to expand...
When done with decent algorithms its certainly positive on most DACs I have tried it with. It can improve low end DACs a lot and does great things for more expensive ones too.
The lower the quality DAC, the lower its processing capability and the lower the quality of its algorithms.
When you push the DAC to its max data rate it will likely turn off processing because its not fast enough to handle the data rate, leaving no benefit (but also wont further destroy quality at least).

HQPlayer is brilliant.
It uses your PCs CPU (and gfx card if you choose) with very high quality algorithms for upsampling.
PCM or DSD to 384KHz+ PCM output can be done on a 4Core CPU.
PCM above 88KHz to DSD 512+ output needs a very fast GPU with the very best algorithm selected, or a crazier CPU.
You can use a lower bitrate output or a lesser algorithm if you run out of processing power.
PCM is a bit more detailed but DSD calms down shrill recordings and is generally an easier listen, I change depending on the album.
The demo is free and gives you half hour at a time.
https://www.signalyst.com/
Get the desktop version.

Some posts in this thread are a good guide how to set it up.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/new-holo-audio-cyan-dac-amp-pcm-or-dsd-module.861507/
There may be a few newer settings since then.

edit, Wow.
The latest version has new Closedform M algorithms which are really detailed and dont need a huge amount of processing power.
... although the DSD version doesnt appear to work on anything higher than 44KHz PCM input. Still, nice to have the option.
 
Last edited:
If it changes the sound from 44/16, then it adds something that wasn't in the original recording or retracts from it, i.e. it's a lossy conversion. It's a bad quality upscaler if it changes the audible sound. It may sound better, but it's practically like EQ-ing the original.
 
Nenu said:
Some posts in this thread are a good guide how to set it up.
https://www.head-fi.org/threads/new-holo-audio-cyan-dac-amp-pcm-or-dsd-module.861507/
Click to expand...
"Playing PCM directly may be slightly more airy sounding and overall blended together, but in terms of sonic accuracy, it is levels behind DSD512.

DSD over DoP on JRiver Media Center is 15%better
- Note: DSD over DoP even on a MacBook will still sound better (more articulate) than standard PCM, however what you want is Native DSD Encoding.

DSD512 encoding (standard algorithm) on JRiver Media Center is 30% better.
DSD512 encoding (advanced algorithm) such as "poly-sinc-xtr-2s" from HQPlayer is 40%better.
DSD512 encoding (similar to CORD DAVE algorithm) such as "poly-sinc-xtr" from HQPlayer is 46-48% better."


I just...uh...what are these numbers? I don't even...
 
alxlwson said:
Audio threads are always a pissing contest between who has the best ears, tubes, chips, speaker types, etc...

I'm a Klipsch fan (grew up with khorns and LS's) and love the "bright" horns for all my music and gaming. Because of that, I'm an outcast guy "that's been to too many rock shows". At least I don't own Bose.
I'm thinking about heading to a CHD and taking a listen of the new HP-3 cans.

Audiophile- My ears are better than everyone else's, you all suck, something something tubes/chips/EQ for plebs
Click to expand...
I personally like the kilpsh sound. Still using my klipch rw 10 with my pc.
 
alxlwson said:
Audio threads are always a pissing contest between who has the best ears, tubes, chips, speaker types, etc...

I'm a Klipsch fan (grew up with khorns and LS's) and love the "bright" horns for all my music and gaming. Because of that, I'm an outcast guy "that's been to too many rock shows". At least I don't own Bose.
I'm thinking about heading to a CHD and taking a listen of the new HP-3 cans.

Audiophile- My ears are better than everyone else's, you all suck, something something tubes/chips/EQ for plebs
Click to expand...


Don't forget vinyl rulz.
 
d8lock said:
I personally like the kilpsh sound. Still using my klipch rw 10 with my pc.
Click to expand...

I'm almost entirely Klipsch in the HT; the rear pair, height (Atmos), and 12" sub are others due to pricing and performance needs, but I have their 8" sub (doing 'high' bass), a pair of 6.5" towers, and a pair of 5" surrounds and a cheap little HTIB center that I'll probably upgrade to another Klipsh (dual 6.5" if I can find one cheap enough).
 
My home setup on my pc is a soundblaster ae5 running into my Denon x1300 powering a pair of Infinity Reference 162's. For headset or quieter music listening it run my DT880s (with a modmic5 for game chat) into the soundcard to drive them. For me this setup sounds great. What a lot of people forget too is that there are things you can upgrade for larger improvements but as your setup gets better diminishing returns vs cost occur.

I will not say placebo doesnt factor in, it does and often I have caught myself with it. Sometimes it is because I changed a setting/config and thought it sounded better but it reverted and then realized I didnt actually notice a difference. Some changes are a 'hit you in the face' kind of improvement though. I ran my headphones through a burn in after reading on the internet, I didn't perceive any difference but that doesn't mean there wasn't one

On board sound has greatly improved no doubt. Drivers are usually where it all falls apart though. I will say that using my soundcard has resulted in less audio pops or hiss when system is under load vs onboard. Worth the cost difference? Probably not but the headphone amp is decent.

Seriously though, stop hating on people wanting a [H]ard audio setup! We are all extreme specification pushers here!
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'm almost entirely Klipsch in the HT; the rear pair, height (Atmos), and 12" sub are others due to pricing and performance needs, but I have their 8" sub (doing 'high' bass), a pair of 6.5" towers, and a pair of 5" surrounds and a cheap little HTIB center that I'll probably upgrade to another Klipsh (dual 6.5" if I can find one cheap enough).
Click to expand...
Oh man that HTIB center is holding that setup back! My setup is polk audio. I'm planning on upgrading it all to the lsi series, but I have other priorities at the moment.
 
d8lock said:
Oh man that HTIB center is holding that setup back! My setup is polk audio. I'm planning on upgrading it all to the lsi series, but I have other priorities at the moment.
Click to expand...

Very likely; of course, I'm in an apartment, so I keep volume low and throw a few extra dB at the center, generally just to hear voices better. The upgrade would be to give voices a bit more 'range' :).
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Very likely; of course, I'm in an apartment, so I keep volume low and throw a few extra dB at the center, generally just to hear voices better. The upgrade would be to give voices a bit more 'range' :).
Click to expand...
Ah. When I lived in an apartment I didn't even turn my subs on. I don't miss that at all.
 
d8lock said:
Ah. When I lived in an apartment I didn't even turn my subs on. I don't miss that at all.
Click to expand...

I try to be courteous about usage hours; there's a 10" studio sub and two JBL 5" studio monitors on my desktop, same restrictions, I put on headphones after hours.

And that's actually also why I added the 12"; the 8" adds significantly to 'high bass' but bottoms out horribly with 'low bass'; now I get a good spectrum of bass without boosting the volume too much.
 
d8lock said:
Ah. When I lived in an apartment I didn't even turn my subs on. I don't miss that at all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, between the two 1000watt RMS subs in my HT setup and all the junk I've accumulated in my basement, I don't think I can ever live in an apartment again.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I'm almost entirely Klipsch in the HT; the rear pair, height (Atmos), and 12" sub are others due to pricing and performance needs, but I have their 8" sub (doing 'high' bass), a pair of 6.5" towers, and a pair of 5" surrounds and a cheap little HTIB center that I'll probably upgrade to another Klipsh (dual 6.5" if I can find one cheap enough).
Click to expand...

You know, I've never heard a Klipsch setup. I have to admit to having some unfounded biases against them, primarily because of how mass market they've gone. I generally tend to feel that with any product of any kind, as they have success and increase volumes they tend to get greedy and cut corners, and quality suffers. I have no objective reason to feel this way about Klipsch. Just an unfounded bias :p Maybe I should listen to a setup some day.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
You know, I've never heard a Klipsch setup. I have to admit to having some unfounded biases against them, primarily because of how mass market they've gone. I generally tend to feel that with any product of any kind, as they have success and increase volumes they tend to get greedy and cut corners, and quality suffers. I have no objective reason to feel this way about Klipsch. Just an unfounded bias :p Maybe I should listen to a setup some day.
Click to expand...

Well, I think your perspective is fair; I first got attached to their ProMedia PC setups, which for what they were, were the best you could get. Still are, really, though they only sell 2.1 systems now, and their 5.1 systems were known for their failures.

As far as HT stuff goes, I've mostly stuck with them because I know I'm getting a quality product with real support. Perhaps not the best for my money, but the job will most certainly be done.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I try to be courteous about usage hours; there's a 10" studio sub and two JBL 5" studio monitors on my desktop, same restrictions, I put on headphones after hours.

And that's actually also why I added the 12"; the 8" adds significantly to 'high bass' but bottoms out horribly with 'low bass'; now I get a good spectrum of bass without boosting the volume too much.
Click to expand...
The only thing you really have to worry about other people hearing is sub 30hz stuff. It’s really hard to contain and travels far. The mid bass region can be mostly contained by simple wall insulation. I can hit over 130db 40hz-300hz in my room and when I was testing/eqing my system my neighbors didn’t hear me once.

When I loaded up avengers and iron man blew up a building they wanted to know what I was watching then.
 
Doesn't surprise me. I've got very easy to drive headphones in the MrSpeakers Ether Flow Closed and Focal Elex (open), despite them being ok, if aneamic, running off even a phone, they do benefit from more watts, particuarly the lower end.

I've got an iDSD Black Label Micro for my desk setup and it does the job, made a big difference over my zxr. I personally don't feel the DAC adds heaps, but the amp definitely does. You're still infinitely better off putting money into the transducers though.

Audio is all so subjective and influenced by what you are used to however, I've listened to plenty of stuff that is 'good' and I can't listen to them. Fostex headphones or the Schiit Jotunheim for example, objectively they are supposed to be good and the Schiit I really wanted to like, but hated (and it's a fucking amp which makes even less sense). Plus I have to listen to my Ether's with a little bass amp too (+3)

Does make me laugh how people get upset or try and project their choices or subjective preferences on others. If you enjoy it and you're happy, have at it.
 
Iratus said:
Doesn't surprise me. I've got very easy to drive headphones in the MrSpeakers Ether Flow Closed and Focal Elex (open), despite them being ok, if aneamic, running off even a phone, they do benefit from more watts, particuarly the lower end.

I've got an iDSD Black Label Micro for my desk setup and it does the job, made a big difference over my zxr. I personally don't feel the DAC adds heaps, but the amp definitely does. You're still infinitely better off putting money into the transducers though.

Audio is all so subjective and influenced by what you are used to however, I've listened to plenty of stuff that is 'good' and I can't listen to them. Fostex headphones or the Schiit Jotunheim for example, objectively they are supposed to be good and the Schiit I really wanted to like, but hated (and it's a fucking amp which makes even less sense). Plus I have to listen to my Ether's with a little bass amp too (+3)

Does make me laugh how people get upset or try and project their choices or subjective preferences on others. If you enjoy it and you're happy, have at it.
Click to expand...
Surprised that you didn't like the Schiit. Never heard the Jotunheim but I really like my Valhalla. Which Fostex headphones do you use?
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
You know, I've never heard a Klipsch setup. I have to admit to having some unfounded biases against them, primarily because of how mass market they've gone. I generally tend to feel that with any product of any kind, as they have success and increase volumes they tend to get greedy and cut corners, and quality suffers. I have no objective reason to feel this way about Klipsch. Just an unfounded bias :p Maybe I should listen to a setup some day.
Click to expand...


Go find a Heritage dealer and have a listen. The Heritage line are considered the "real" Klipsch speakers, and they will blow you away. The Reference and Reference Premier lines are still great speakers, but if you want the best Klipsch has to offer, then you need to check out the Heritage speakers.


https://www.klipsch.com/dealers
 
d8lock said:
Surprised that you didn't like the Schiit. Never heard the Jotunheim but I really like my Valhalla. Which Fostex headphones do you use?
Click to expand...

Tried the Th610 and Th900 mk 2, just didn't like them. As I said, not a criticism as I know they're objectively good and a lot of people love them, but I didn't.

Then again I think my Focal Open Cans make my Ether's sound broken. Even though the Ether's were in a different league to the Fostex. Bit obnoxious to use open cans in the office though.
 
d8lock said:
Surprised that you didn't like the Schiit. Never heard the Jotunheim but I really like my Valhalla. Which Fostex headphones do you use?
Click to expand...
d8lock said:
Surprised that you didn't like the Schiit. Never heard the Jotunheim but I really like my Valhalla. Which Fostex headphones do you use?
Click to expand...

I have a Jotunheim. I use it with my 250 ohm Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro's and my Sennheiser 650's and I absolutely love it.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I have a Jotunheim. I use it with my 250 ohm Beyerdynamic DT770 Pro's and my Sennheiser 650's and I absolutely love it.
Click to expand...
Which dac is the Jontunheim's most similar to (of the schiit products)? I've been wanting to add a schiit dac to my amp instead of the one I've got. Been using an odac2->valhalla on my beyer t1's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top